User talk:Wikipedical/Archive 2

speedy
Thanks for your work in checking articles, but please use speedy according to WP:CSD. Speedy for lack of notability is only when there is no notability asserted. Saying someone won an award, as for Amma Asante is a clear assertion of importance. If you think the subject insufficiently notable, but any reasonable claim to importance is present, use PROD or AFD. And when you tag speedy, you should mark the edit summary accordingly--otherwise it makes it very difficult for us overworked admins to check and get things deleted. In fact, it is important to use edit summaries in all cases so it can be seen what is being tagged or whatever. DGG (talk) 14:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Boone Carlyle
Hey, I've reviewed the article for GA status, it's on hold pending some stuff I've added on the talkpage. Cheers. The Rambling Man 17:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Sandbox
I noticed that you are citing IMDb for the awards and nominations. IMDb is not considered a reliable source since it is user-edited. Someone will remove it once it is added to the main Lost page, so you should look for different websites. --thedemonhog talk • edits 03:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Nominatons for "Good Article" status
This nomination is best discussed first on the Talk page of an article. For Alberto Gonzales, it will fail immediately, if it were to get attention this week by an evaluator, because it is not stable, as the subject is prominently in the news, and the article is both subject to many edits, and is "semi- protected" from anonymous IP addresses editing. Not a good status for a candidate article. -- Yellowdesk 01:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. (Also useful to know, is that the comments made by evaluators can entail a lot of corrective editing, and its good to know (thanks to prior conversation on the talk pages) that there are several people willing to respond to suggestions to move a nomination forward...and that they agree each other as well.) You may want to turn on reminders to put in an edit summary on edits, as I see more than one other has commented on the lack of summaries. See: Special:Preferences and the "editing" submenu, and checkbox "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary " -- Yellowdesk

Lost (season 1)
I have been working on the page and I believe it is ready for an FLC. However, before I nominate it, I was wondering if you would mind taking a look at it and telling me what you think (ie. If anything big is missing, if anything is unneeded, etc, etc). I didn't add any production info because I felt that none of it was really season specific and was better off in the main Lost article. Thanks, Scorpion0422 17:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The season 1 page never had a section like that. -- Scorpion0422 23:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * A lot of that information is already in the article, it's just in the lead. I didn't think there was really any need to branch it off into its own section. -- Scorpion0422 23:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I have expanded the article a bit, what do you think? -- Scorpion0422 00:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Brown v. Board of Education
The article Brown v. Board of Education you nominated as a good article has passed, see Talk:Brown v. Board of Education for eventual comments about the article. Well done! Gavin Collins 11:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Renaissance architecture
I don' know why you've put this article up as a Good Article nomination, when it is already an "A" article as an architectural article and that is what it is about, specifically. The next step is not GA, which is one down from where it is now.

It has remained almost completely stable for months. The last worthwhile suggestions on the discussion page were made in April by someone with expertise, and were responded to. Nothing substantial has been done since then, It was written by three people with expertise under the watchful eye of a number of others. It should be a "FA", but since I am its main author, I'm hesitant to put it forward. I've met some very rude people reviewing "FA"s, who knowing little, thought they knew all, which is disheartening. Particularly since I'm one of the few art editors who has had the time to take on really big generic projects and complete them, rather than just doing one painting or one building.

I am also the author of Italian Renaissance painting, Gothic architecture, Romanesque architecture, Sistine Chapel ceiling, rewrote most of Leonardo da Vinci which had lost its FA status, Fra Angelico, Giotto, Cathedral architecture of Western Europe, most of Stained Glass and quite a number of other associated articles.

If you feel inclined to put Renaissance architecture up as an "FA", I won't complain. Since it is already an "A", if it gets reduced to a "GA", I will feel extremely badly done by.

Amandajm 12:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Weedypickle! Have a great vacation! Amandajm 00:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:TeddyScrooge.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:TeddyScrooge.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 13:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Wikipidipoo!
I have just put a whole lot of articles up as potential FACs. You wanna take a look? Amandajm 07:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Holocaust
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article The Holocaust you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 3 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Van Tucky  Talk 04:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

GA Nomination of Star Trek
I have placed Star Trek, an article that you nominated for Good Article status, on hold for a period of up to seven days so that concerns that arose during the review may be addressed. You may view these comments on the article's talk page. Cheers, CP 04:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:IndyKingdomCrystalSkull.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:IndyKingdomCrystalSkull.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 23:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:DIRECTORY
Um, I'm not sure how the lists you've been deleting fall under this policy; I'm sure notability may be an issue for some, but they are not loosely-associated topics or anything else I can see in the policy. &mdash; TAnthonyTalk 00:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

doh!
opps ! my edit to the AFD explains what happened. :-) --Fredrick day 01:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

FL Main page proposal
You either nominated a WP:FLC or closed such a nomination recently. As such, you are the type of editor whose opinion I am soliciting. We now have over 400 featured lists and seem to be promoting in excess of 30 per month of late (41 in August and 42 in September). When Today's featured article (TFA) started (2004-02-22), they only had about 200 featured articles and were barely promoting 20 new ones per month. I think the quality of featured lists is at least as good as the quality of featured articles was when they started appearing on the main page. Thus, I am ready to open debate on a proposal to institute a List of the Day on the main page with nominations starting November 1 2007, voting starting December 1 2007 and main page appearances starting January 1 2008. For brevity, the proposal page does not discuss the details of eventual main page content, but since the work has already been done, you should consider this proposal assuming the eventual content will resemble the current content at the featured content page. Such output would probably start at the bottom of the main page. The proposal page does not debate whether starting with weekly list main page entries would be better than daily entries. However, I suspect persons in favor of weekly lists are really voicing opinions against lists on the main page since neither TFA nor Picture of the day started as weekly endeavors, to the best of my knowledge. Right now debate seems to be among support for the current selective democratic/consensus based proposal, a selective dictatorial approach like that used at WP:TFA or a non-selective first in line/calendar approach like that used at WP:POTD. See the List of the Day proposal and comment at WP:LOTDP and its talk page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Larry Craig
The article Larry Craig you nominated as a good article has failed, see Talk:Larry Craig for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a reassessment. Cheers, CP 19:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of September 11, 2001 attacks
The article September 11, 2001 attacks you nominated as a good article has failed, see Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a reassessment. Cheers, CP 15:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Star Trek
The article Star Trek you nominated as a good article has failed, see Talk:Star Trek for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a reassessment. Cheers, CP 04:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Ellen
Why do you keep removing information about other broadcasts from The Ellen DeGeneres Show? The way I have pared it down, I don't see how it correlates to what rule you are quoting. I see that the international broadcast tables have been removed from every show, though. Your argument doesn;t hold about how the article should be about the "show" not its airings because this shows its internatioal popularity. bmitchelf•T•F 03:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Seconded for The Class and 30 Rock. The WP:DIRECTORY page says that you can't use schedules, even if series premiere dates and channels are listed, I do not see how this is a schedule. If the scheduled time are removed, I do not see this breaking any policies. Jamie jca 20:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Giuliani
I reverted your edit on Rudy Giuliani because the information contained has many links to sourced information. As a practical matter, Giuliani has taken different positions on the issues at different times. It would not be right to say his position on an issue is X at time A while ignoring a different stance he took at time B. Jmegill 21:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Admin?
Would you like to have a few more buttons on your toolbar? I'd be happy to nominate you. Tim Vickers 02:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008
The article Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 you nominated as a good article has failed, see Talk:Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a reassessment. Cheers, CP 04:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

LOTD proposal
You either voted on the original list of the day proposal or the revised version. A more modest experimental proposal is now at issue at WP:LOTDP. Feel free to voice your opinion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Featured List of the Day Experiment
There have been a series of proposals to initiate a Featured List of the Day on the main page. Numerous proposals have been put forth. After the third one failed, I audited all WP:FL's in order to begin an experiment in my own user space that will hopefully get it going. Today, it commences at WP:LOTD. Afterwards I created my experimental page, a new proposal was set forth to do a featured list that is strikingly similar to my own which is to do a user page experimental featured list, but no format has been confirmed and mechanism set in place. I continue to be willing to do the experiment myself and with this posting it commences. Please submit any list that you would like to have considered for list of the day in the month of January 2008 by the end of this month to WP:LOTD and its subpages. You may submit multiple lists for consideration.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 15:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Re your good article nomination of Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy
Here are the potential problems with a good article nomination of Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy
 * A thorough reviewer will notice that more than a few citations are to dead links.
 * The article drops off in the summer of 2007,
 * It is non-uniform in how it handles its narrative: timeline versus thematic discussion
 * repetition of various issues among sections
 * which lead to the need for a comprehensive re-write of much of the article.

It would be preferable to colaborate with editors familiar with the article to see if it might be gone over and improved before submitting a Good Article nomination. Also, having the collaboration and goodwill of knowledgable editors means there might be prompt reply to failures to meet the GA standard. At the moment, there is no such advance commitment to do that.
 * What do you think of withdrawing the nomination pending some discussion on the talk page about the current state of the article? -- Yellowdesk (talk) 06:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD
Sorry. Already done. will381796 (talk) 04:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi
Are you still on vaction? –thedemonhog talk • contributions 05:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Why, what's up? Nothing.  It's just rare for someone to take a six-month vacation.  ;)  –thedemonhog talk • contributions 05:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Sweeney Todd
Thanks for catching my mistake! Typically, the Golden Globes uses the full title of the movie, as they did with Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan. This time they didn't (probably because the production company nominated it by its short title... I failed to realize that. Thanks for moving the page back! If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 05:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Good humor
Hate Barnstars? No way! If I hated em, I wouldn't have this page. I'm a total Barnstar whore! Thank you! -- E n d l es s D a n  14:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Edit to Lost (season 4)
Perhaps =) I've been traveling around Europe for the past several months, so I haven't been keeping up with Wikipedia.  I plan on slowly re-integrating myself into editing when I have some free time. Jtrost (T | C | #) 05:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Sriram Das
Hi:I prodded the article already, and I don't think an article is supposed to prodded more then once. So how about dragging it to an afd? -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 06:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

William Lowndes Yancey
This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of January 6, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. haydn_likes_carpet (talk) 22:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Well written?: Fail
 * 2) Factually accurate?: Fail
 * 3) Broad in coverage?: Pass
 * 4) Neutral point of view?: Pass
 * 5) Article stability? Pass
 * 6) Images?: Fail
 * Hi Wikipedical, I have passed William Lowndes Yancey as a Good Article. Well done! Please consider reviewing an article or two at WP:GAN to help with the backlog. --haydn_likes_carpet (talk) 00:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Inducks
Hi, I've just added various external sources on the Inducks article. Maybe you want to have a look at them and consider if this affects your vote regarding the deletion of that page. Thanks. Herve661 (talk) 22:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Excellent addition to
HM alums.SLY111 (talk) 18:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)SLY111

Spitzer
Where's your sense of humor or the moment (and the period wasn't necessary in your edit)? Spitzer deserves less than spittle. He might well be deleted from the improving list of notable HM alums.SLY111 (talk) 23:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)SLY111

parenthesis clarification with the title of the series only
Referring to the CSI episodes. Why just include "(CSI)" when there are still plenty of articles with "(CSI episode)"? 92.233.156.165 (talk) 16:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)ZoDanma

Mad Men episode list
Hey, I re-formated your re-formating, hope we can settle on it.–FunkyVoltron talk 11:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and it's advisable to not include number of disc information for the DVDs; region 1 and region 2 contain a different number of discs.
 * Hey, why did you remove the production codes?–FunkyVoltron talk 20:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

A plea from WikiProject Media franchises coordinator
Dear Wikipedical...I am writing today to ask for your participation in WikiProject Media franchises. You seem to have some interest in it, since you took the time to stop by and discuss the naming convention. It is just Emperor and me at the moment, and we could really use some additional editors to help us get articles identified as ones for the projects attention and assessed as such or written from scratch. Even if your only involvement is to keep an eye on what we are doing as a liaison from another project, that would be extremely helpful. I do not know everything there is to know about all the naming conventions, infoboxes, etc from the other projects, so I would love to have a core group of editors to help me coordinate this better. So, if you are willing to spend a little time with this project and help me figure out just how far and wide this project could, should, or would be; I would be extremely grateful.

Thank you. LA (If you reply here, please leave me a message on my talk page.) @ 07:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Please return to WikProject Media franchises
Dear Wikipedical...You are invited to come back to discuss WikiProject Media franchises. Since you participated in one or more discussions of the project, possibly when it was known as WikiProject Fictional series, I hope to see you return to it. The project needs your participation. Currently there is no activity on the project's talk page about the reorganization which is discouraging. I had great expectations for this project as it touches so many topics but am becoming discouraged. I hope to see you return. LA (If you reply here, please leave me a message on my talk page.) @ 19:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Lost Airline.
Hey, I know it's a little late, but I wanted to apologize for deleting your addition of the new airline to the Lost page. I was wrong for deleting it without doing the proper footwork. --HELLØ   ŦHERE 02:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

All set.
Sorry about deleting that page of yours. I figured it was a test page or an error, but I certainly didn't mean for you to lose your work. I've restored the page for you. Thanks for letting me know and thanks for being nice about it. :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:BarneyRubble.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:BarneyRubble.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:Infobox Disney character
Template:Infobox Disney character has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. ViperSnake151  Talk  01:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Infobox Disney character
A tag has been placed on Template:Infobox Disney character requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (&lt;noinclude>&#123;{transclusionless}}&lt;/noinclude>).

Thanks. ViperSnake151  Talk  01:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:LostSeason1
Template:LostSeason1 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 04:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

That source does not identify MiB as Samuel in the teleplays, just MiB in one specific form
MiB is referred to as Locke when in the form of John Locke. MiB itself, with all its forms, is not referred to as Samuel or Locke or any other actual name. Ofus (talk) 05:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Lost interpretive conclusion
I had a legitimate source; how was there original research? {Cmguy777 (talk) 05:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)}


 * Your conclusions are accurate; however, the article mentioned the producers offered an interpretive ending for the viewers. As far as I know there have been no books published specifically about the ending, only web research is available.  The Lost conclusion section was only to mention that there was no specific ending to the program, not postulate interpretive conclusions.  Regardless, the Lost article, in my opinion, needs to have a conclusion section for the reader.  The website article source was neutral.  The show was very popular and I am not sure how mentioning good writing is opinion.  The good writing kept people glued to the television for six years.  Thanks for the input. Respectfully. {Cmguy777 (talk) 05:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)}

DYK
Hello! Your submission at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Voceditenore (talk) 11:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 06:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion centralized at WP:NOT
You reverted the edits on a number of cable station articles of an editor who is basing the inclusion of the lists on the uncompleted status of a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not. Active Banana (talk) 03:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The Summary section was I think another editors attempt to condense the existing discussion before opening a formal RfC. In that section it appears that a consensus position of listing the stations but not the channel numbers was begining to coalesce, but if you would not be able to join with that type of an interpretion, feel free to begin the RfC - you may wish to direct people to the Summary section. Active Banana (talk) 23:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

VERY UNREASONABLE
Your deletions of the cable channel line-ups are very unreasonable and just using WP:NOTDIR for a very questionable way. So just mind your own business. Vgyu 08:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)VgyuVgyu 08:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The Dark Knight Returns
The film is not ready to be an article until it is filmed. It should be filming sometime around early next year. If so there is already a sanbox of this film located here if you ever want to contribute on that. Good luck! ;)− Jhenderson  7 7 7  20:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Lost title card.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Lost title card.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 03:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Lost
Can you do the assessments I requested here, if it's possible? Thanks. igordebraga ≠ 00:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Can you please explain this undo? Thanks,  D u s t i *poke* 07:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd really like to know as well. Thanks. DanielDPeterson  ( talk ) 06:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, fair enough. DanielDPeterson  ( talk ) 19:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

GA review
Please see Talk:De Profundis (letter)/GA1. Drmies (talk) 04:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Daytime Emmy Award.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Daytime Emmy Award.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. George Ho (talk) 10:36, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of The Georgetown Improv Association for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Georgetown Improv Association is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/The Georgetown Improv Association until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. GrapedApe (talk) 03:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk:De Profundis (letter)/GA1
I just failed the GA review and closed it. I spend considerable time and energy on the review, and you had nominated it for that--and then you never returned to the article or the review. Thanks for a complete waste of time. I suggest you never submit anything for GA review again unless you are prepared to stay on top of it. Drmies (talk) 03:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Worse, you did it twice: you asked for a peer review, at Peer review/Physical history of the United States Declaration of Independence/archive1, and then you did nothing with the results. Drmies (talk) 03:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Arrested Development
Please don't add material to the article without including inline citations to reliable sources. I hope you'll take a look at the talk page and engage in the discussion about sourcing before making any more revisions reversions. Thanks. — Bdb484 (talk) 22:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Categories
Please stop If you want categories renamed, you must use the CfD process. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Samaantharangal
Would you mind commenting for DYK here. -  Vivvt  &bull;&#32; ( Talk ) 14:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
I have added some comments to be fixed. Cheers, TBrandley 02:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK for List of awards and nominations received by Arrested Development
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Your approved HighBeam code failed to deliver: please email Ocaasi
Hi! Good news: you were approved for a free WP:HighBeam account. Bad news: Your access code could not be delivered because of your email settings. Please: Thanks! --User:Ocaasi 15:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com with your Wikipedia username so I can respond with your account code.

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is approved!
Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 15:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code you were emailed. If you did not receive a code, email wikiocaasi@yahoo.com your Wikipedia username.
 * To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
 * If you need assistance, email or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
 * HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
 * Show off your HighBeam access by placing on your userpage
 * When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Proposed deletion of The Georgetown Improv Association


The article The Georgetown Improv Association has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Not the subject of multiple third party reliable sources

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 07:31, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of The Georgetown Improv Association for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Georgetown Improv Association is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/The Georgetown Improv Association (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. — Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 07:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
TBrandley 16:00, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
TBrandley 22:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)